Your reporting has re-victimized this child by exposing intimate, traumatic information to the public. This kind of coverage does not serve the public interest—it violates the dignity and privacy of a young person who has already endured unimaginable harm. It is especially disturbing that the article included the perspective of the attacker, a decision that felt not only gratuitous but disgusting, and shockingly indifferent to the survivor’s experience.

What steps are you taking to correct this? Will the article be removed or significantly revised? Will an apology be issued to the victim and their family?

The way this story was handled reflects a serious failure in editorial judgment. I urge you to take accountability and ensure your publication does not further perpetuate harm under the guise of journalism.

The average salary of a radiologist in Colorado is $362,742. She can easily afford a single-family home in Littleton. A home she might buy here would be her second. Her occasional use of that property would do nothing to fill Littleton’s elementary and high school classrooms. Her offer to purchase that condo or townhouse would compete against one made by that Commerce City family whose child would help fill a Littleton classroom further raising the price.

The historic pattern of development in Littleton’s downtown cited by Vibrant Littleton emphasizes the importance of locating multifamily housing within easy walking distance of downtown stores and public transit routes. Most neighborhoods in Littleton don’t meet those criteria. Creating multifamily units far from public transit routes necessarily brings more, not less, motor vehicle traffic into Littleton.